During the Second World War, in Russia, the
Germans had remarkable success against the
Soviet armor with properly trained Ju87 pilots
and the 37mm gun under the wings. More deadly
than the A10 Wart Hog? Difficult comparison,
but both aircraft are famous. Just wondering. John

I would go with the Warthog, but both were very nasty against armor. I also think the Typhoons should be included, the bane of any Panzer commander.
It is amazing that the A-10's 30mm cannon can take out any armor it can find.

When They Knock Down Your Front Door, How You Going To Come? With Your Hands On Your Head Or On The Trigger Of Your Gun?Bassist Paul Simonon-The Clash

The JU-87 was a design that was limited from the day is was produced. It was a dive bomber and a mediocre one at that. Its positives were it could haul a big bomb and drop it accurately. It was range limited and not very maneuverable. Yes, in the hands of a good pilot they were the scourge of Russian tanks w/37mm guns. BUT, they had to get past Russian AAA & aircraft, and those that did were not enough to be effective.
The A-10 was designed to be maneuverable from the outset and fly low; use the terrain to its advantage and carry a lot of punch. The Stuka was one sided; big bomb OR big guns, NOT both. A-10 hauls everything and the kitchen sink. Stuka needed more power and the A-10 has gobs of it. The A-10 can loiter for over an hour after flying 300 miles to engage targets. The Stuka couldn't even do 300 miles with some armament configurations.
Yet the Stuka was all the Germans had and they used it up to the end of the war. It is surprising number that were flown to capture airfields to be turned over to the allies. Only one or two exist today.
A more valid comparison would be the A-26 (Later B-26) and the A-10 as they shared a lot of design philosophy. The A-26 came four later than the Stuka but it was highly successful as a bomber and ground attack aircraft. It served with many countries and participated in numerous campaigns with great success. The A-26 was everything the Stuka wanted to be.
Geno

Don't forget the IL2 Sturmovik and the P47 Thunderbolt. Both aircraft made very good ground attack/tank killers. After all, eight(8) 50cal. machine guns and a well placed bomb was enough to get a 50 ton Panther tank to do a "Back-Flip" on to it's turret! I've seen photos of Tiger II's that were really messed up by P-47's (blown off engine decks, cut-up fuel tanks, and wrecked crew compartments(with crews!)).
The P-51 started out as a dive bomber complete with air brakes but it didn't pan out for that roll.

The Germans also used Me-110's, He-410's, and FW-190F's for CAS. the 190-F's were wildly armored, so they were like flying tanks. The Germans were able to mount the gun pods on may of their planes, Me-109, FW-190F's, and Ju-87's, some of the multi engined planes may have also been able to strap on extra guns too
The P-51 airframe started as the A-36 Apache, then a real engine was put into it making it a P-51.
Don't Forget The IL-2's, P-47', and Typhoons the Allies used. My thought is the Typhoon was the most effective on a plane vs. kill basis but the P-47 was more widely used and more likely to make sure it got its pilot home.
The A-10 is like no other plane it is designed to be hit and live to fight another day, and be easily repaired and maintained. It can carry it's weight in ordinance. It has good range and can be fitted with sidewinder missiles.
If any of the planes were in an air war with a capable opponent I would expect the Typhoon/P-47 would be most effective, useful, and survivable. The A-10 would be second only because it has far less air to air ability than the either Typhoon or P-47. But the A-10 is probably more deadly, less vulnerable to its prey, err ground targets. Of course the A-10 might also be the great attack helicopter killer........
The Japanese also had a 2 engine fighter that regularly mounted 37mm and 20 mm guns internally, as well as a few with 75 mm guns. It's name escapes me right now but it certainly had ground attack capabilities. They were supposedly an equal to our P-38's in ACM.
The British also had a Mosquito variamt that had a 57mm cannon, used primarly in an anti-shipping role.

<center id=center>Don't be afraid of BDU pants, they are just pants after all.Sheriff Taylor had access to rifles, why can't I? He worked in Mayberry...... Respondent Heller, A D.C. special policeman, </center id=center>

Ah, the infamous "TseTse" version of the Mosquito.
The invader is a good choice for best operational attack aircraft, but there are a bunch more that didn't get produced like the Beech A-36 Grizzly and some whacky Vultee support aircraft. B-25H wasn't too shabby either.
I think that US airplanes kicked ass for ground support for one reason. They had the HORSEPOWER to carry arms, fuel and armor. When a single engined aircraft can lug 3000lbs+ of bombs, you've got something. The Soviets had examples of our best radial engines in hand, and they could not produce them to the same power levels.
Bottom line is that the best attack aircraft is the one you have aimed at the enemy's soft spot at the right time. A Ju87 was fine for bombing; it just wasn't very survivable around enemy fighters. I think that there was a Canadian Hurricane pilot who shot down 3 Ju87s one after another simply because the aircraft could not manouever out of danger.
As much of a favorite as it is of mine, I don't think that the A-10 would operate successfully if air superiority was not guaranteed. It's a bomb truck, and one of those super manoeverable roosian AAMs would ruin its sortie ability, whether it was fired from the ground of the air. But the thing is, we have guaranteed air superiority for the foreseeable future, and that is not something the Germans enjoyed for long.
Mr Clean has picked very comparable aircraft in their respective eras, IMO. Good ground aircraft, but they would fare poorly in the face of enemy fighters or Air defense.
As far as Kraut tank-killers, there was an underpowered Henschel twin engine aircraft with cannibalized Frog engines. It wasn't all that successful except for later versions that had magnetic trips for downward firing mortars. I don't know the details (and would like to know more) but these aircraft are supposed to have wiped out "a lot" (a battallion IIRC) of Russian tanks at Kursk.
Kind of like the "Magic Eye" photosensor equipped Me 163 automatically firing upward grenade salvos into allied bombers. Schrage Musik^2
Guess these were further indications that a very important part of a warplane is optimizing the weapons system.